Expedition 16 lands 260 miles and 20 minutes past target?

Although I suspect he was trying to lighten things up with this remark
(shows why you need a pr dept) I do recall that after the first woman in
space in Russia all those years ago, the guy in charge swore he would never
fly another woman. I don't know the reason, thou she always admitted to
feeling sleepy through the mission and I believe blamed it on a bit too much
co2, but the engineers thought otherwise.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"JD in TX" wrote in message
...
"Brian Gaff" wrote in
m:

so I suspect there was either a navigational
error, or the system erred and went into failsafe mode.
No doubt we shall hear.

Yeah, they are blaming it on the women!!!!

http://tinyurl.com/6y3mze

"Later, Perminov referred to a naval superstition that having women
aboard a ship was bad luck when asked about the presence of two women on
the Soyuz.

"You know in Russia, there are certain bad omens about this sort of
thing, but thank God that everything worked out successfully," he said.
"Of course in the future, we will work somehow to ensure that the number
of women will not surpass" the number of men.

Challenged by a reporter, Perminov responded: "This isn't
discrimination. I'm just saying that when a majority (of the crew) is
female, sometimes certain kinds of unsanctioned behavior or something
else occurs, that's what I'm talking about." He did not elaborate."

John Doe wrote:

Or is 260 miles way out of proportion to what unusual atmpospheric
condition could do ?

Yes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

So, what is the real answer then. We have had the jibes, jokes and the shrug
offs, what actually was wrong. Are they really saying they don't know? I
mean next time it could land on someones house at this rate.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
John Doe wrote:

Or is 260 miles way out of proportion to what unusual atmpospheric
condition could do ?

Yes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:57:12 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


But just remember... capsules are safer when they fail. Who cares if they
fail more often!

At least that's what the capsule mafia will be proclaiming.


At this rate, the Soyuz-TM has had what 20% failure rate involving ballastic
re-entries and I believe a few other fairly major issues.

Let''s hope this doesn't happen when/if a Soyuz lifeboat is bringing
home an ISS crewmember with appendicitis or a broken arm...

Brian

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:26:54 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

So, what do we think, and are they all OK, I'd have thought someone would
have said what was wrong by now. Unfortunately, I was unable to follow it
live this time.

I don't recall Russia explaining to the world what happened with TMA-1
or TMA-10 either. They have tourist seats to sell, and disturbing news
about Soyuz reliability (you know, the Soyuz that Russia-lovers tell
is is the greatest thing since sliced bread and Americans are idiots
to use the big, unsafe Shuttle...) doesn't make that easy.

Brian

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:45:28 -0500, JD in TX
wrote:


Challenged by a reporter, Perminov responded: "This isn't
discrimination. I'm just saying that when a majority (of the crew) is
female, sometimes certain kinds of unsanctioned behavior or something
else occurs, that's what I'm talking about." He did not elaborate."

Oh, that Perminov! He's one of the finest minds of the 17th Century.

Brian

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Out of curiosity, would unusually high winds in upper atmosphere (or
lower one) have the potential to put the craft 260 miles off course ?


No.

Or is 260 miles way out of proportion to what unusual atmpospheric
condition could do ?

For the amount of time spent in the upper atmosphere, yes, it's out of
proportion.



I think that those events should be of great concern to the politicians
making technical decisions about that CEV thing. If they decide to land
the thing on land, they should be weary of any promise to reliably
always hit a very precise target on land.

One can argue that the Russians don't really need to pinpoint the target
everytime so they don't really spend the money necessary to fix
whatever glitches cause the off-target landings.

One could argue that. Just like one could argue you don't have to fix the
O-Rings since the worst burn-thru still left 30% of the O-ring left.

Fact is, it's a failure and indicative of a serious problem.


But even if NASA has all the budget to fix those glitches,

Umm, NASA's aint paying to fix these glitches.

will it be
able to afford to have a few incidents early on (before glitches are
fixed) where CEV lands 260 miles off course ?



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
m...
So, what is the real answer then. We have had the jibes, jokes and the
shrug offs, what actually was wrong. Are they really saying they don't
know? I mean next time it could land on someones house at this rate.


My guess is it's the exact same thing as the last two times this happened,
the computer had a problem and defaulted to a ballastic re-entry.



Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

One can argue that the Russians don't really need to pinpoint the target

One could argue that. Just like one could argue you don't have to fix the
O-Rings since the worst burn-thru still left 30% of the O-ring left.

There is a big difference. The o-rings are a catastrophic result.
Landing off-course doesn't because the area is not populated, flat
toundra all around so it isn't as if they were to land in the alps if
they missed a small flat area in the middle of Switzerland.

But even if NASA has all the budget to fix those glitches,

Umm, NASA's aint paying to fix these glitches.


I was refering the glitches that will happen with CEV. NASA will have
the budgets and incentives to fix them if it ops for land landings
because landing 260 miles off course would be big news in the USA. For
russia, it doesn't really make that big a deal to land offcourse because
it won't hurt anyone.

What sort of G forces are we talking about here in the case of a
ballistic re-entry vs normal re-entry ? is it 3G instead of 2 ? Is it
10Gs instead of 2 ?

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:40:46 -0400, John Doe wrote:


One could argue that. Just like one could argue you don't have to fix the
O-Rings since the worst burn-thru still left 30% of the O-ring left.

There is a big difference. The o-rings are a catastrophic result.
Landing off-course doesn't

Yet.

Since Russia clams up about the ballistic entries, we have no idea
what's really causing it, or if that problem can propogate to other
systems that _would_ cause a catastrophic result.


Brian